Invisible History:
Afghanistan's Untold Story

Tells the story of how Afghanistan brought the United States to this place in time after nearly 60 years of American policy in Eurasia - of its complex multiethnic culture, its deep rooting in mystical Zoroastrian and Sufi traditions and how it has played a pivotal role in the rise and fall of empires.

Invisible History, Afghanistan’s Untold Story provides the sobering facts and details that every American should have known about America’s secret war, but were never told. The Real Story Behind the Propaganda
(read more)

Crossing Zero:
The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire

Focuses on the AfPak strategy and the importance of the Durand Line, the border separating Pakistan from Afghanistan but referred to by the military and intelligence community as Zero line. The U.S. fought on the side of extremist-political Islam from Pakistan during the 1980s and against it from Afghanistan since September 11, 2001. It is therefore appropriate to think of the Durand/Zero line as the place where America’s intentions face themselves; the alpha and omega of nearly 60 years of American policy in Eurasia. The Durand line is visible on a map. Zero line is not.(Coming February, 2011) (read more)

Democracy and freedom of expression are under attack. There is blood in the streets. How did it get that way? Where did it come from, what are its sources and what continues to drive it? This four part series will look at the origin of those sources and unlock connections that when understood should open doors of perception that have been locked shut for far too long.

Speaking at The Intervention in Afghanistan and the Fall of De’tente Conference at Lysebu Norway, 1995, former Carter National Security staff council member Dr. Gary Sick, (1976-1981) described the criteria for driving American war planners into action.

“It seems to me there is a difference here between facts and perceptions, and this seems to be where the problem ultimately lies. Of course, perception is reality, as far as policy makers are concerned, so what you believe, in fact, drives what you do regardless of what the facts are.”

It’s vital to remember Dr. Gary Sick’s observation at this moment in our latest deep-state-anti-Russia identity crisis. After 16 years of war accompanied by political and financial crises America finds itself in a war of perception with the world and with itself. If America’s policy-makers continue to think they can create reality regardless of facts, then whatever today’s policy makers choose to see as real they will try to make real. It’s a simple formula for delusional thinking with a history of terrible consequences.

In the 1950s some of America’s more creative defense intellectuals perceived Vietnam to be the linchpin of what they called the Domino Theory of a global communist expansion all the while ignoring the nationalist motivations of the North Vietnamese. That misperception, intentional or not led to one of the greatest military blunders in history as well as devastating consequences for the community of defense intellectuals that had thought it up.

As described by author Fred Kaplan, “Vietnam brought out the dark side of nearly everyone inside America’s national security machine. And it exposed something seamy and disturbing about the very enterprise of the defense intellectuals. It revealed that the concept of force underlying all their formulations and scenarios was an abstraction, practically useless as a guide to action.”

Vietnam revealed a conceptual failure in an esoteric system of analysis created by an inbred group of defense intellectuals that was supposed to determine what was real and what was imagined. By1968 its failure had broken the eastern establishment’s hold over foreign policy and created the need to open de’tente with the Soviet Union. But for those on the right who had fought to roll back the very existence of the Soviet Union since its inception in 1917, de’tente was not an option and would be fought by a sophisticated Cold War propaganda machine that would outdo Nazi Germany.

Origins of a Plot

The popular perception that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies against Fascism during World War II disguises the fact that Wall Street’s financial elites were not so secretly supporting the rearmament of Germany after World War I and were especially active in backing Adolph Hitler and the growth of the Nazi Wehrmacht prior to and throughout the war years.

According to Anthony C. Sutton in his 1976 book, Wall Street and the Rise Of Hitler , “The build-up for European war both before and after 1933 was in great part due to Wall Street financial assistance in the 1920s to create a German cartel system, and to technical assistance from well-known American firms— to build the German Wehrmacht… In brief, American companies associated with the Morgan-Rockefeller international investment bankers— were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry— those firms controlled through the handful of financial houses, the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Bank for International Settlements, and their continuing international cooperative arrangements and cartels which attempt to control the course of world politics and economics.”

A World War II study on Nazi occupied France published in 1947 by Harvard University’s William L. Langer, Chief of the Research and Analysis branch of the Office of Strategic Services, OSS, from 1942 to 1945 revealed the origins of a prewar Fascist-plot that may have paved the way for France’s early capitulation in the war. Langer’s report detailed in his book Our Vichy Gamble makes clear that the prewar ideological and nationalist lines between fascist Germany and France were never at issue when it came to Europe’s big business interests. On the contrary; if successful, the plot’s French backers stood to benefit immensely from a German-ruled Europe. Langer writes:

“Germany could count on more than enough eager supporters among French industrial and banking interests–in short, among those who even before the war had turned to Nazi Germany and had looked to Hitler as the savior of Europe from Communism— These people were as good fascists as any in Europe” Many of them had long had extensive and intimate business relations with German interests and were still dreaming of a new system of ’synarchy,’ which meant government of Europe on fascist principles by an international brotherhood of financiers and industrialists.”

The brotherhood of synarchists was not the only hard right wing European group dreaming of a pan-European Union along fascist lines. In London in the mid-1930s, an alliance of militant e’migre’ groups from 16 Central European countries formed a secret international Catholic organization headed by a former Tsarist general. Known at the time as Intermarium (and again today)for that part of Europe bordered by the Adriatic, the Baltic, Black, Aegean and Ionian seas its secret mission was to form an anti-Communist cordon sanitaire against Russia. Stephen Dorril, author of MI6: Fifty Years of Operations writes “The dream of a postwar [World War I] Pan-Danubian [Con]Federation from the Baltic to the Aegean under Habsburg rule — a sort of recreation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire — was kept alive under the direction of the pretender to the throne Archduke Otto von Habsburg. The Monarchists had had the enthusiastic support of Winston Churchill, who, like many of its adherents, had been a member of the Brussels-based right-wing Pan European Union (PEU), founded in 1922 by Hapsburg and Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi as ‘the only way of guarding against an eventual world hegemony by Russia’.”

Another, even more militant group was the Promethean League of the Nationssubjugated by Moscow (soon to be shortened to the Promethean League) which focused mainly on liberating the non-Russian ethnicities in Ukraine and Georgia. The end of World War I and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had left Poland in charge of Western Ukraine which, according to author Dorril’s sources, sparked Polish ambitions to launch an anti-communist counter revolution inside Russia and capture its own empire. “The League ‘played a large part in Polish aspirations for the development of a bloc of states in Eastern Europe, stretching from Finland to the Caucasus, in which Poland could become a true great power by exercising her ‘natural’ position of leadership.’”

Despite Poland’s “‘natural’ position of leadership,” her occupation of Western Ukraine came up against the fiercely racist Galician separatists of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). OUN viewed their own racial beliefs as more in league with Germany’s National Socialists (Nazis) than anything Poland had to offer or even Europe’s more doctrinaire Fascists and Nazi money soon came pouring in. The OUN rejected the Promethean League outright and struck out at Poland’s leadership role. In 1934 OUN’s leaders, Stefan Bandera, Yarolsav Stetsko and Mykola Lebed were arrested by Polish authorities for the murder of the Polish Interior minister and sentenced to death only to later have their sentences reduced to life in prison. But while the League of Nations branded the OUN a “terrorist syndicate” British Intelligence’s head of station in Finland, MI6’s Harry Carr, recruited Bandera’s followers. From the mid-1930s onward MI6 joined in funding the Galician OEN’s anti-Soviet terror operations together with Germany’s military intelligence unit, the Abwehr. The OUN-B (B for Bandera) would go on to establish their reputation for cruelty as Waffen SS extermination squads during operation Barbarossa.

Whether Carr was aware of the Nazi support for OUN or perhaps even coordinated with them is still an open question, but as of 1934 British and German sympathies for Eastern Europe’s terrorists were clearly on the same page when it came to Russia and it didn’t end with a random and isolated MI6 station chief.

As with their French associates, influential right wing networks within Britain’s intelligence services found common cause with Eastern Europe’s fascist anti-communist resistance movements even after the Soviets became Britain’s ally in 1941. One group within the rightwing of the Conservative Party, the Imperial Policy Group (IPG) which maintained strong ties to the head of the Polish government-in-exile, General Wladyslaw Sikorski, was even known to favor a Nazi victory to that of the Soviet Union. Authoritarian but not outwardly Fascist prior to the war, Intermarium immediately joined up with Nazi intelligence following German occupation and remained so throughout the war. By the end of 1944, MI6 was actively recruiting known collaborators and fascists amongst all the exile organizations and as Soviet troops moved from the east, they would be activated to provide intelligence, propaganda and operational support for what London was certain was a coming war against Moscow.

Join us for Part 4 as we explore the post-World War II merger of anti-Soviet covert forces and the emergence of an elite intelligence operation known as the Cercle, which would secretly begin the process of shifting the West’s political dialogue away from the center and toward their extreme Fascist right-wing views.

Please join us in September for the conclusion to our series when we resume with the final installments detailing how events created by national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter administration, opened the door for a globalist/syndicalist takeover under the cover of American Empire – a takeover in the works since the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in 1918.

Democracy and freedom of expression are under attack. There is blood in the streets. How did it get that way? Where did it come from, what are its sources and what continues to drive it? This four-part series will look at the origin of those sources and unlock connections that when understood should open doors of perception that have been locked shut for far too long.

“Tensions between Russia and the U.S. are again on the rise and the risk of a trans-Atlantic trade war is greater than ever, which would have devastating consequences for the global economy. The West as an entity, it would seem, is disintegrating.”

On the eve of the 2017 G-20 summit in Hamburg the view of the United States from Germany is grim. Europe is overrun with refugees from NATO’s wars in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa while President Trump makes impossible demands and offers nothing in return. In a scene reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s, angry masses riot in the streets of Hamburg protesting austerity and economic inequality. Like 18th-century French Royals, the European Union’s detached and disaffected ruling elites struggle to deal with events beyond their control. The lessons of the past go unlearned, the classic mistakes of the ages repeated. The EU, a post-World War II project of the CIA, is broken. America’s role as a unipower has ended in bitterness and without ceremony. The post-war world order held together for better or worse by the perception of American omnipotence and the ideology of casino capitalism is disintegrating fast and with it “The West as an entity.”

Decline of the West

The end did not come suddenly. As disappointing as it may be to the fulminating anti-Trump political sphere, the “culture” of Western civilization has been in a state of confusion over its decline for some time. It is only befitting a cosmic joke that an American hotel/casino owner should bring down the curtain on it.

One hundred years ago in the run-up to World War I, the visionary historian/philosopher Oswald Spengler produced a radical analysis of civilization and culture entitled The Decline of the West, Form and Actuality. Written before the war, but published in 1918 in the aftermath of German defeat, the book became an immediate success and has for nearly one hundred years been challenging successive generations of geopoliticians to come to terms with it.

In Decline of the West, Spengler defines “cultures” as an organic whole that evolves through a life cycle of spring, summer, autumn and winter and then fades away. The final and death phase of this cultural evolution Spengler defines as “civilization” itself or the rule of the rational where only “the brain rules because the soul has abdicated.” As demonstrated throughout history, civilizations come and go and by World War I, Europe had achieved the high point in this cyclical experience and had no place to go but down.

As an inspiration to the young James Burnham, Spengler divided the existence of all things into a duality of the formal and the real, between the thinkers and the doers, the “sword side” and the “spindle side” which at the end of its endless cycle returns to formlessness. To Spengler and to Burnham the final phase of civilization comes as democracy gives way to what Burnham called the Oligarchy but Spengler referred to as Caesarism. It is a place in which the once-vibrant institutions of civilization have become spiritually dead, money has become valueless, and all the wars are cruel private wars waged by tyrants for the private possession of the world.

Between the Hamburg crowd’s protest under the banner of Welcome to Hell, and Donald Trump’s challenge to the Europeans whether the West had the “will to survive” the time has come for Americans to ask themselves some important questions; what then is this entity called the West that is disintegrating? Could this miserable ending have been avoided? And who and what exactly are responsible for bringing us to these gates of hell?

To Spengler, Western civilization was always a Faustian bargain. “In the poetry of the West, Faustian Man figures, first as Parzeval or Tristan, then (modified always into harmony with the epoch) as Hamlet, Don Quixote, Don Juan and eventually Faust or Werther.” Having already sold his soul to the devil, Western Man has been freed to decide his own fate. From Spengler to James Burnham to Patrick Buchanan the school of 20th-century conservative and neoconservative/fascist thought has blamed the West’s decline on the betrayal of this contract by “soft” liberal values. The Third Reich promised to turn the clock back by crushing the communist heresy and returning Germany to its martial glories of the past. Hitler’s invasion of Russia was named Operation Barbarossa after Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa’s 12th-century crusade. But instead of a German renewal, Hitler’s scheme to thwart the end only brought it nearer.

The post-Vietnam rise of Ronald Reagan and the new right promised an ideological revival as well, a return to core conservative values and a new morning in America. In practice Reagan’s anti-government policies, his massive and unnecessary defense buildup and reckless trickle-down economics hastened its decline by decades and in the end destroyed the fabric of American society.

As it was in the past and remains now, the right’s use of Machiavellian tactics to turn the tide in its favor almost always works and in the end invariably winds up bringing down the house. The bitter philosophical conflict between idealism (form) and reality and what constitutes a just society goes back to the origin of Western thought and has produced profound political contradictions throughout the centuries. The arch-neoconservative Jeanne Kirkpatrick argued back in 1979 in an essay regarding the emerging new class in American politics, “The goal of the new-class reformer–whether of Left or Right–is to bring the real into conformity with the ideal (that is, with an idea of reality), [which] manifests a broader belief that social institutions can and should conform to and serve abstract principles. The most serious problems with this rationalist approach were recognized by Aristotle, who criticized Plato’s blueprint for the ideal state… Aristotle also argued that experience and law were better guides than reason alone to the good society and that Plato’s proposal would sacrifice real goods to illusory ideals.”

Kirkpatrick’s essay on the dangers of idealism should stand as a textbook study for James Burnham’s Machiavellians. Kirkpatrick would soon become the Reagan administration’s spokeswoman at the UN for the new neoconservative class with its emphasis on “illusory ideals” of a worldwide democratic revolution and service to abstract principles over experience and the law. But, as laid out by James Burnham in his Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, the new Machiavellians must delude the masses with lies and outright fraud if necessary to maintain control.

Kirkpatrick’s “idea of reality” was shaped by a hybrid neoconservative/fascist ideology whose roots lay in the social chaos of the early 20th century; World War I, the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Trotskyist schism within Marxist/Leninism. Supported by the Pentagon’s top brass from World War II forward and then brewed together by the CIA with Europe’s leftover fascist elites, Lenin’s followers metastasized from Trotskyist intellectuals into Defense Intellectuals. From the 1970s onward they would become a self-perpetuating force for war inside both Democratic and Republican parties and a fifth column for undermining any thought of normal diplomatic relations with Russia. The Reagan administration provided a platform for this new class of former Trotskyists who were willing to sacrifice anything real or imagined for their illusory ideals. But the ultimate success of their rise to power relied on more than just a Marxist dialectic of infiltration and subversion.

The neoconservative political takeover of the 1970s was made possible by a network of old right-wing European and American interests dedicated to overthrowing Western democracies and replacing them with a new class of fascist transnational elites. These elites, currently referred to as globalists but prior to World War II as Synarchists, have long plotted the overthrow of the nation state and rule by a one-world government. But none of it could have happened without the covert assistance of rogue right-wing factions of the West’s intelligence services and a brutal but sophisticated propaganda campaign backed by the CIA, to control the West’s perceptions of what that world would look like.

Join us for Part 3 as we look at the synarchy of fascist organizations vying for power and influence prior to World War II and their revival and consolidation under an exclusive Cold War circle of corporate power aimed at eliminating the nation state and democracy.

Democracy and freedom of expression are under attack. There is blood in the streets. How did it get that way? Where did it come from, what are its sources and what continues to drive it? In this four part series we’ll look at the origin of those sources and unlock connections that when understood should open doors of perception that have been locked shut for far too long.

As a brief darkness cuts a path across the American continent from the latest total eclipse of the sun, another more lasting darkness is now welling up from the ground of a secret history that to most Americans remains unknown. Recent events continue to demonstrate America is not at peace with itself or the world. It appears the United States is in opposition to just about everyone, everywhere and there is no relief in sight. A November 2008 report titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional “Strategic Shocks” in Defense Strategy Development by the U.S. Army’s Nathan Freier predicted this moment as the United States grappled with civil insurrection and a multi-polar world it was not equipped to handle. “Imagine ‘a new era of containment with the United States as the nation to be contained’ where the principle tools and methods of war involve everything but those associated with traditional military conflict. Imagine that the sources of this ‘new era of containment’ are widespread; predicated on nonmilitary forms of political, economic, and violent action; in the main, sustainable over time; and finally, largely invulnerable to effective reversal through traditional U.S. advantages.”

Our last four part series dealt with the origins of the neocons, their roots in Communist Leon Trotsky’s Fourth International and their emergence as a political force in the neoconservative politics for never-ending war. How many Americans would be happy to learn that the conservative new right revolution of the 1980s was really a rebranding of a Trotskyist anti-Stalinist agenda for worldwide Communist revolution made new and empowered by the CIA? Such was the outgrowth of Cold War psychological warfare that most Americans never learned about and still don’t understand. Unfortunately for most Americans in 2017, events that occurred a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago aren’t just vague remembrances, they’re non-existent. But the “system” of thought “dialectical materialism” employed by Marxist/Leninists is still in use by neoconservatives in both political parties and it has now reduced our democracy and everything else Americans once believed in, to a nascent Fascism.

As recent events in Charlottesville Virginia made clear, class and race hatred arestill the tipping point for social upheaval much the way they were in Europe just prior to World War II. Today’s social dynamics are strikingly similar to that moment in history and likewise the behavior of the participants a mirror image of their 1930s counterparts. A three volume history written by newspaper columnist Waverley Root published in 1945 titled The Secret History of The War tells a tale of the internecine social chaos just before the fall of France in 1940 that could stand verbatim as a warning for what is happening today.

“Below the surface, this is a war to check the spread of democracy. This is easy to see if you examine the circumstances in which Fascist movements of various types were launched… There is no way to nullify the result of democratic elections except by eliminating the democracy, along with its machinery for following the course chosen by the majority. So that is what the Fascists did. Many highly respectable persons, genuinely horrified at what they considered unjustified attacks on the security of their property and social positions, gave support to the parties which dared oppose the result of the democratic elections. They considered that the voters had made a grievous error. They arrogated to themselves the right to correct it. They were not far-seeing enough to realize that the nullification of the result of an election meant necessarily the nullification of all elections, of the entire system which” guaranteed legal protection for acquired rights.”

Waverley Root concludes: “In France, the 1936 victory of the Popular Front was not followed by open revolt, but the classes who opposed it proceeded to sabotage the attempts by the elected government to put into force the platform which the voters had approved. These groups were easy victims of the Nazis…”

Even prominent neoconservatives like the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, who lobbied heavily against Trump in last year’s election, are aware that the Democratic Party’s current campaign to sabotage Trump’s presidency risks catastrophe by undermining the credibility of the American election process. During the campaign for president, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were targets for delegitimization and by the same group of elites, but in the maelstrom following the election the real target for delegitimization, democracy itself, has been consistently overlooked and the dangers are real and growing.

The interests of the upper classes in America today, the Wall Street hedge fund billionaires and technocratic elites are no different than those of France in the 1930s who were waiting for the moment to seize power once they had succeeded in undermining the democratic process. As it occurred in France and is now occurring in the U.S, the elites have manipulated the political system to destroy itself from within for no one’s benefit but their own. Ironically there is little difference today in the efforts to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency from those in the late 1930s that opened the door for Fascism and World War II. But the starkest historical similarity of all between now and the run up to World War II may lie in the overtly racist demonization of Russia and the original goals of the Third Reich, played out in the Nazi invasion of Soviet Russia in 1941.

According to an unpublished article prepared by the press section of the Nazi General Staff early in the Russian campaign as cited by Waverley Root, the Nazi’s sole aim had never been to wage war in Western Europe – but had always been to rid “Europe of ‘the purulent Bolshevik abscess’ in order to be able to ‘construct the New Order…’” And “once Russia is defeated, the New European Order, the New Asiatic Order and the New World Order will finally be able to establish themselves in a pacified universe, according to the grandiose plans of the greatest man the world has ever known–Adolph Hitler!”

The horror of World War II – which Waverley Root made abundantly clear, was intended solely for Soviet Russia and not Europe – was followed by the prolonged horror of another war against Russia known as the Cold War. The 1940 novelDarkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler, a Hungarian Zionist-ex-Communist propagandist who’d fled to London,would set the tone for the post-war demonization of the Soviet Union. Employed by the secret propaganda arm of the British Foreign office the (IRD), a dangerously unstable Koestler would become a major influence in the creation of the CIA-backed Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). And with the aid of the British/ American intellectual James Burnham, a convert from Leon Trotsky’s Fourth International, Koestler would embrace the rule of America’s imperial hierarchy, urging his fellow anti-Soviet intellectuals to aid the West’s “power elite in its mission to rule.”

Today America faces its own Darkness at Noon moment, but much to the disappointment of the current crop of Arthur Koestlers, putting the blame on Moscow while blood is spilling in the streets of America begs questions that Washington cannot afford to ignore but yet cannot afford to answer.

Race hatred is a powerful influence on American policy today both at home and abroad. Seen in this light, the war against Russia and the current demonization of Vladimir Putin is a race war to finish the job the Nazi’s failed to accomplish in 1941 with their invasion of Russia known as Operation Barbarossa.

Democracy and freedom of expression are under attack. There is blood in the streets. How did it get that way? Where did it come from, what are its sources and what continues to drive it? In this four part series we’ll look at the origin of those sources and unlock connections that when understood should open doors of perception that have been locked shut for far too long.

Liz and Paul say that the Neocons/Neo-liberals are literally dreaming. They quote from Lawrence of Arabia to demonstrate the dangers of dreaming stupidly:Those who dream by night…wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.- Lawrence of Arabia from Seven Pillars of Wisdom

On the other hand, they cite a quote that shows a powerful understanding of dreams, myths and one’s own life: Myths are public dreams; dreams are private myths. By finding your own dream and following it through, it will lead you to the myth-world in which you live. But just as in dream, the subject and object, though they seem to be separate, are really the same. - Joseph Campbell

What precisely is neo-conservatism, and how did it come to power? Most of the scholarship (Shadia Drury being a leading example) focuses on Leo Strauss and his cult followers – the hard line Zionists who seized power in the wake of the 9/11 coup d’état. But Gould and Fitzgerald have sketched an alternate history. Instead of Strauss, they focus on Machiavellian “ex-Trotskyite” James Burnham – whose real-life example inspired the dystopian vision of George Orwell. They also name Zbigniew Brzezinski as a key neocon, arguing that this hard-line Machiavellian philosophy took over during first term of Jimmy Carter, long before the arrival of George W. Bush.This is historical revisionism at its finest! (Good thing this kind of revisionism is still legal.) You can listen to the broadcast here.

This article is the fourth part of a four-part series on Truthdig called “Universal Empire”—an examination of the current stage of the neocon takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

Reader comment: “These four articles, taken together, present the most concise, most accurate, and most clearly articulated historical transformation of the USA away from the premier nation around the world in 1945 and into the world’s most degenerate ‘imperial republic’ since Caligula’s Rome.”

By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth GouldThe recent assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released “false narratives” to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the “fake news” propaganda war launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep roots in Communist Trotsky’s Fourth International must be understood before deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.

Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December 2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only to George Orwell’s fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel “1984.” Referred to as “the Global Engagement Center,” the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to “recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests.” The real purpose of this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges Washington’s neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump’s firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.

This latest attack on Russia’s supposed false narrative takes us right back to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham’s pivot from Trotsky’s Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham’s “The Struggle for the World” stressed, the Third World War had already begun with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors’ revolt. In Burnham’s Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan’s Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion, terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and, when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.

The true irony of today’s late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize “truth” and attack alternate narratives isn’t just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire “Freedom Manifesto” employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA’s Psychological Strategy Board’s (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike.

The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA’s control over the non-Communist left and the West’s “free” intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it.

As historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1969 of the CIA’s cooptation of the American left, “The modern state … is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as ‘free’ intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions.”

Key to turning these “free” intellectuals against their own interests was the CIA’s doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in the document PSB D-33/2. PSB D-33/2 foretells of a “long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns” while “creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence” in order to “weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West.” The goal was to “predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners,” while employing local elites “would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development.”

While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing “a wide doctrinal system” that “accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity,” embracing “all fields of human thought—all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology.” He concluded: “That is just about as totalitarian as one can get.”

Burnham’s Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder’s “The Cultural Cold War,” “Marshall also took issue with the PSB’s reliance on ‘non-rational social theories’ which emphasized the role of an elite ‘in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.’ Weren’t these the models used by James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully to hand.”

Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America’s Cold War orthodoxy. With “The Machiavellians,” Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.

Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.

Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of “Britain’s Secret Propaganda War,” “the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left.”

IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and distorted information to “independent” news outlets and then using the laundered story as “proof” of the false story’s validity. One such front enterprise established with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte Brian Rossiter Crozier. Described by Burnham’s biographer Daniel Kelly as a “British political analyst,” in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years as one of Britain’s top propagandists and secret agents.

If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look no further than to Brian Crozier’s closet for the blueprints. As we were told outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan in 1982, the U.S. didn’t need “proof the Soviets used poison gas” and they don’t need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream believer, a dangerous imperialist who acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.

The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded “The Machiavellians” as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 “indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics.” The key to Crozier’s thinking was Burnham’s distinction between the “formal” meaning of political speech and the “real,” a concept which was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled at how Burnham’s understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the use of “the formal” to conceal “the real” was no different today than when used by Dante Alighieri’s “presumably enlightened Medieval mind.” “The point is as valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in 1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante’s method. Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or the person’s character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more of less absolute.”

But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham’s talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union.

In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International (6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be caught doing. As he explained in his memoir “Free Agent,” the name 6I was chosen “because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals. In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or ‘6I.’ ”

Crozier’s cooperation with numerous “able and diligent Congressional staffers” as well as “the remarkable General Vernon (‘Dick’) Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence,” cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham’s mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser. As George Orwell wrote in his “Second Thoughts on James Burnham”: “What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. … Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud.”

Today, Burnham’s use of Dante’s political treatise “De Monarchia” to explain his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say in Hell, “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.” Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

The odd, psychologically conflicted and politically divisive ideology referred to as Neoconservatism can claim many godfathers. Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter, Daniel Bell, Norman Podhoretz and Sidney Hook come to mind and there are many others. But in both theory and its practice the title of founding-father of the neoconservative agenda of endless warfare that rules the thinking of America’s defense and foreign policies today might best be applied to James Burnham.

His writings in the 1930s provided a refined Oxford intellectual’s gloss to the Socialist Workers party and as a close advisor to Communist revolutionary Leon Trotsky and his Fourth International he learned the tactics and strategies of infiltration and political subversion first hand. Burnham reveled in his role as a “Trotskyist intellectual” pulling dirty tricks on his political foes in competing Marxist movements by turning their loyalties and looting their best talent.

Burnham renounced his allegiance to Trotsky and Marxism in all its forms in1940 but he would take their tactics and strategies for infiltration and subversion with him and would turn their method of dialectical materialism against them. His 1941book The Managerial Revolution would bring him fame and fortune and establish him as an astute, if not exactly accurate political prophet chronicling the rise of a new class of technocratic elite. His next book The Machiavellians would confirm his movement away from Marxist idealism to a very cynical and often cruel realism with his belief in the inevitable failure of democracy and the rise of the oligarch. In 1943 he would put it all to use in a memo for the U.S. Office of Strategic Services the OSS in which his Trotskyist anti-Stalinism would find its way into the agency’s thinking. And in his 1947 book The Struggle for the World, Burnham would expand his confrontational/adversarial dialectic toward the Soviet Union into a permanent, apocalyptic policy of endless war. By 1947 James Burnham’s transformation from Communist radical to New World Order American conservative was complete. His Struggle for the World had done a French Turn on Trotsky’s permanent Communist revolution and turned it into a permanent battle plan for a global American empire. All that was needed to complete Burnham’s dialectic was a permanent enemy and that would require a sophisticated psychological campaign to keep the hatred of Russia alive for generations.

The rise of the Machiavellians

In 1939 Sidney Hook, Burnham’s colleague at NYU and fellow Marxist philosopher had helped to found an anti-Stalinist Committee for Cultural Freedom as part of a campaign against Moscow. During the war Hook too had abandoned Marxism and like Burnham somehow found himself in the warm embrace of the right-wing of America’s intelligence community during and after World War II. Hook was viewed by the Communist Party as a traitor and “counter-revolutionary reptile” for his activities and by 1942 was informing on his fellow comrades to the FBI.

Selling impoverished and dispossessed European elites on the virtues of American culture was essential to building America’s empire after the war and Burnham’s early writings proved the inspiration from which a new counter-culture of “Freedom” would be built. As veterans of internecine Trotskyist warfare both Burnham and Hook were practiced at the arts of infiltration and subversion and with Burnham’s TheMachiavellians: Defenders of Freedomas their blueprint they set out to color anything the Soviets did or said with dark intent.

As Burnham articulated clearly in his Machiavellians, his version of Freedom meant anything but intellectual freedom or those freedoms defined by America’s Constitution. What it really meant was conformity and submission. Burnham’s Freedom only applied to those intellectuals (the Machiavellians) willing to tell people the hard truth about the unpopular political realities they faced. These were the realities that would usher in a brave new world of the managerial class who would set about denying Americans the very democracy they thought they already owned. As Orwell observed about Burnham’s Machiavellian beliefs in his 1946 Second Thoughts, “Power can sometimes be won or maintained without violence, but never without fraud, because it is necessary to use the masses…”

By 1949 the CIA was actively in the business of defrauding the masses by secretly supporting the so called non-Communist left and behaving as if it was just a spontaneous outgrowth of a free society. By turning the left to the service of its expanding empire the CIA was applying a French Turn of its own by picking the best and the brightest and the creation of the National Security State in 1947 institutionalized it. Assisted by Britain’s Information Research Department the IRD, the CIA recruited key former Soviet disinformation agents trained before the war who had managed non-Communist front groups for Moscow and put them to work. As Frances Stoner Saunders writes in her book, The Cultural Cold War, “these former propagandists for the Soviets were recycled, bleached of the stain of Communism, embraced by government strategists who saw in their conversion an irresistible opportunity to sabotage the Soviet propaganda machine which they had once oiled.”

By its own admission the CIA’s strategy of promoting the non-Communist left would become the theoretical foundation of the Agency’s political operations against Communism for over the next two decades. But the no holds barred cultural war against Soviet Communism began in earnest in March 1949 when a group of 800 prominent literary and artistic figures gathered at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel for a Soviet sponsored “Cultural and Scientific” conference that would sue for peace. Both Sydney Hook and James Burnham were already actively involved in enlisting recruits to counter Moscow’s Communist Information Bureau’s (Cominform) efforts to influence Western Opinion. But the Waldorf conference gave them an opportunity for dirty tricks they could only have prayed for.

Demonstrators organized by a right-wing coalition of Catholic groups and the American legion heckled the guests as they arrived. Catholic nuns knelt in prayer for the souls of the Communist atheists in attendance. Gathered upstairs in a tenth floor bridal suite a gang of ex-Trotskyists and Communists led by Hook intercepted the conference’s mail, doctored official press releases and published pamphlets challenging speakers to admit their Communist past.

In the end the entire conference became a twisted theatre of the absurd and Hook and Burnham would use it to sell Frank Wisner at the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination on taking the show on the road.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom: By Hook or by Crook

Drawing on the untapped power of the Fourth International, the coming out party came on June 26, 1950 at the Titania Palace in occupied Berlin. Named for Hook’s 1939 concept for a cultural committee, The Congress for Cultural Freedom’s fourteen-point “Freedom Manifesto” was to identify the West with freedom. And since everything about the West was said to be free, free, free then it went without saying everything about the Soviet Union wasn’t.

Organized by Burnham and Hook, the American delegation represented a who’s who of America’s post war intellectuals. Tickets to Berlin were paid for by Wisner’s Office of Policy Coordination through front organizations as well as the Department of State which helped arrange travel, expenses and publicity. According to CIA Historian Michael Warner the conference’s sponsor’s considered it money well spent with one Defense Department representative calling it “unconventional warfare at its best.”

Burnham functioned as a critical connection between Wisner’s office and the intelligentsia moving from the extreme left to the extreme right with ease. Burnham found the Congress to be a place to inveigh not just against Communism but against the non-communist left as well and left many wondering whether his views weren’t as dangerous to liberal democracy as Communism. According to Frances Stoner Saunders, members of the British delegation found the rhetoric coming out of the Congress to be a deeply troubling sign of things to come. “Hugh Trevor-Roper was appalled by the provocative tone… ‘There was a speech by Franz Borkenau which was very violent and indeed almost hysterical. He spoke in German and I regret to say that as I listened and I heard the baying voices of approval from the huge audiences, I felt, well, these are the same people who seven years ago were probably baying in the same way to similar German denunciations of Communism coming from Dr. Goebbels in the Sports Palast. And I felt, well, what sort of people are we identifying with? That was the greatest shock to me. There was a moment during the Congress when I felt that we were being invited to summon up Beelzebub in order to defeat Stalin.’”

The Congress for Cultural Freedom didn’t need Beelzebub, it already had him in the form of Burnham, Hook and Wisner and by 1952 the party was just getting started. Burnham worked overtime for Wisner legitimizing the Congress as a platform for the Machiavellians alongside ex-Communists and even Nazis, including SS General Reinhard Gehlen and his German Army intelligence unit which had been brought into the CIA after the war, intact. E. Howard Hunt, Watergate “plumber” famous as a CIA dirty trickster remembered Burnham in his memoirs, “Burnham was a consultant to OPC on virtually every subject of interest to our organization… He had extensive contacts in Europe and, by virtue of his Trotskyite background, was something of an authority on domestic and foreign Communist parties and front organizations.”

In 1953 Burnham was called upon again by Wisner to reach beyond Communism to help overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Teheran apparently because Wisner thought the plan needed “a touch of Machiavelli.” But Burnham’s greatest contribution as a Machiavellian was yet to come. His book The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom would become the CIA’s manual for displacing Western culture with an alternative doctrine for endless conflict in a world of oligarchs and in the end open the gates to an Inferno from which there would be no return. ………………………………………………………………………………………………Join us next as we reach beyond Soviet Communism and into the creation of a sophisticated doctrinal campaign that would neutralize any political opposition (Communist or not) to the “planners” designs and make the world safe for the rise of the Machiavellian elite.

This article is Part II of a four-part series published on Truthdig. Read Part 1.

By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould

Most Americans outside of Washington policy circles don’t know about Team B, where it came from or what it did, nor are they aware of its roots in the Fourth International, the Trotskyist branch of the Communist International. Lawrence J. Korb, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985 attributed the intelligence failure represented by 9/11 to Team B and had this to say about it in a 2004 article for the Los Angeles Times.

“The roots of the problem go back to May 6, 1976, when the director of Central Intelligence, George H.W. Bush, created the first Team B… The concept of a “competitive analysis” of the data done by an alternative team had been opposed by William Colby, Bush’s predecessor as CIA director and a career professional… Although the Team B report contained little factual data it was enthusiastically received by conservative groups such as the Committee on the Present Danger. But the report turned out to be grossly inaccurate… Team B was right about one thing. The CIA estimate was indeed flawed. But it was flawed in the other direction.”

Korb went on to explain that a 1978 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review concluded; “that the selection of Team B members had yielded a flawed composition of political views and biases. And a 1989 review concluded that the Soviet threat had been ‘substantially overestimated’ in the CIA’s annual intelligence estimates… Still, the failure of Team B in 1976 did not deter the hard-liners from challenging the CIA’s judgments for the next three decades.”

Now long forgotten, the origins of the Team B “problem” actually stretched back to the radical political views and biases of James Burnham, his association with the Communist Revolutionary Leon Trotsky and the creation of powerful eastern establishment ad hoc groups; the Committee on the Present Danger and the American Security Council. From the outset of the Cold War in the late 1940s an odd coalition of ex-Trotskyist radicals and right wing business associations had lobbied heavily for big military budgets, advanced weapons systems and aggressive action to confront Soviet Communism. Vietnam was intended to prove the brilliance of their theories, but as described by author Fred Kaplan, “Vietnam brought out the dark side of nearly everyone inside America’s national security machine. And it exposed something seamy and disturbing about the very enterprise of the defense intellectuals. It revealed that the concept of force underlying all their formulations and scenarios was an abstraction, practically useless as a guide to action.” (Wizards of Armageddon page. 336) Kaplan ends by writing “The disillusionment for some became nearly total.” Vietnam represented more than just a strategic defeat for America’s defense intellectuals; it represented a conceptual failure in the half-century battle to contain Soviet-style Communism but for Team B, that disillusionment represented the opportunity of a lifetime.

Trotskyist Intellectuals become The New York Intellectuals become Defense Intellectuals

Populated by an inbred class of former Trotskyist intellectuals, the Team B approach represented a radical transformation of America’s national security bureaucracy into a new kind of elitist cult. In the 1960s Robert McNamara’s numbers and statistics justified bad policy decisions, now personal agendas and ethnic grudges would turn American foreign policy into an ideological crusade. Today those in control of that crusade fight desperately to maintain their grip, but only by de-encrypting the evolution of this secret “double government” can anyone understand America’s unrelenting post-Vietnam drift into despotism over the last 40 years.

Rooted in what can only be described as cult thinking, the Team B experiment tore down what was left of the CIA’s pre-Vietnam professional objectivity by subjecting it to politicization. Earlier in the decade, the CIA’s Office of Strategic Research (OSR) had been pressured by Nixon and Kissinger to corrupt their analysis to justify increased defense spending but the Team B’s ideological focus and partisan makeup so exaggerated the threat, the process could never return to normal.

The campaign was driven by the Russophobic neoconservative cabal which included Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pipes, Richard Perle and a handful of old anti-Soviet hardliners like Paul Nitze and General Danny Graham. It began with a 1974 article in the Wall Street Journal by the famed nuclear strategist and former Trotskyist Albert Wohlstetterdecrying America’s supposed nuclear vulnerability. It ended 2 years later with a ritualistic bloodletting at the CIA, signaling that ideology and not fact-based analysis had gained an exclusive hold on America’s bureaucracy.

The ideology referred to as Neoconservatism can claim many godfathers if not godmothers. Roberta Wohlstetter’s reputation as one of RAND’s preeminent Cold Warriors was equal to her husband’s. The couple’s infamous parties at their Santa Monica home acted as a kind of initiation rite for the rising class of “defense intellectual”. But the title of founding-father might best be applied to James Burnham. A convert from Communist revolutionary Leon Trotsky’s inner circle, Burnham’s 1941, The Managerial Revolutionand 1943’s The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom championed the anti-democratic takeover then occurring in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy while in1945’s Lenin’s Heir heswitched his admiration, if only tongue in cheek, from Trotsky to Stalin.

George Orwell criticized Burnham’s cynical elitist vision in his 1946 essay Second Thoughts on James Burnham, writing “What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud… Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud.”

Orwell is said to have modelled his novel 1984 on Burnham’s vision of the coming totalitarian state which he described as “a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery.”

As a Princeton and Oxford educated English scholar (one of his professor’s at Balliol College was J.R.R Tolkien) Burnham landed a position as a writer and an instructor in the philosophy department at New York University just in time for the 1929 Wall Street crash. Although initially uninterested in politics and hostile to Marxism, by 1931Burnham had become radicalized by the Great Depression and alongside fellow NYU philosophy instructor Sidney Hook, drawn to Marxism.

Burnham found Trotsky’s use of “dialectical materialism” to explain the interplay between the human and the historical forces in his History of the Russian Revolution to be brilliant. His subsequent review of Trotsky’s book would bring the two men together and begin for Burnham a six year odyssey through America’s Communist left that would in this strange saga, ultimately transform him into the agent of its destruction.

As founder of the Red Army and a firebrand Marxist, Trotsky had dedicated his life to the spread of a worldwide Communist revolution. Stalin opposed Trotsky’s views as too ambitious and the power struggle that followed Lenin’s death splintered the party. By their very nature the Trotskyists were expert at infighting, infiltration and disruption. Burnham reveled in his role as a Trotskyist intellectual and the endless debates over the fundamental principle of Communism (dialectical materialism) behind Trotsky’s crusade. The Communist Manifesto approved the tactic of subverting larger and more populist political parties (entrism) and following Trotsky’s expulsion from the Communist party in November 1927, his followers exploited it. The most well-known example of entrism was the so called “French Turn” when in 1934 the French Trotskyists entered the much larger French Socialist Party the SFIO with the intention of winning over the more militant elements to their side.

That same year the American followers of Trotsky in the Communist League of America, the CLA did a French turn on the American Workers Party, the AWP in a move that elevated the AWP’s James Burnham into the role of a Trotsky lieutenant and chief advisor.

Burnham liked the toughness of the Bolsheviks and despised the weakness of the liberals. According to his biographer Daniel Kelly, “He took great pride in what he saw as its hard-headed view of the world in contrast to philosophies rooted in ‘dreams and illusions.’” He also delighted in the tactics of infiltrating and subverting other leftist parties and in 1935 “fought tirelessly for the French turn” of another and far larger Socialist Party the SP some twenty thousand strong. The Trotskyists intended “to capture its left wing and its youth division, the Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL),” Kelly writes “and take the converts with them when they left.”

Burnham remained a “Trotskyist Intellectual” from 1934 until 1940. But although he labored six years for the party, it was said of him that he was never of the party and as the new decade began he renounced both Trotsky and “the ‘philosophy of Marxism’ dialectical materialism” altogether. He summed up his feelings in a letter of resignation on May 21, 1940. “Of the most important beliefs, which have been associated with the Marxist Movement, whether in its reformist, Leninist, Stalinist or Trotskyist variants, there is virtually none which I accept in its traditional form. I regard these beliefs as either false or obsolete or meaningless; or in a few cases, as at best true only in a form so restricted and modified as no longer properly to be called Marxist.”

In 1976 Burnham wrote to a legendary secret agent whom biographer Kelly referred to as “the British political analyst Brian Crozier” that he had never swallowed dialectical materialism or the ideology of Marxism but was merely being pragmatic given the rise of Hitler and the Depression.

But given the influential role Burnham would come to play in creating the new revolutionary class of neoconservatives, and their central role in using Trotsky’s tactics to lobby against any relationship with the Soviet Union, it’s hard to believe Burnham’s involvement with Trotsky’s Fourth International was only an intellectual exercise in pragmatism.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Join us next time as we explore how Burnham’s involvement with the OSS and the creation of the Congress for Cultural Freedom would set the stage for a sophisticated doctrinal campaign that would neutralize any political opposition (Communist or not) to Anglo/American culture and make the world safe for the rise of the Machiavellian elite.